Gillespie v. Gallant

Citation190 A.2d 607,24 Conn.Supp. 357
Decision Date15 February 1963
Docket NumberNo. CV,CV
CourtCircuit Court of Connecticut
Parties, 24 Conn.Supp. 357 Meyer GILLESPIE v. John H. GALLANT et al. 14-625-8626.

Massey & Jackson, Hartford, for plaintiff.

John H. Gallant, Charles H. Gallant, and Willie O. Gallant, defendants, pro se.

HOLDEN, Judge.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries to property alleged to have been caused by the negligence of John H. Gallant, minor son of Charles H. Gallant. Defendant Willie O. Gallant, although a named party defendant, was not proceeded against at the hearing.

By stipulation between the parties, the following facts are found: On December 30, 1961, the plaintiff was the owner of a 1962 Oldsmobile. On that day, John H. Gallant, son of Charles H. Gallant, took the automobile of the plaintiff without the plaintiff's permission. On that date, while operating the plaintiff's vehicle at a high rate of speed, John H. Gallant caused the automobile to leave the highway and to strike a building at 219 Sedgwick Road, West Hartford, causing damage in the amount of $619.12 to the automobile. The negligence of the defendant John H. Gallant was the proximate cause of the injuries to the automobile of the plaintiff.

The issue in this case is whether the father of John H. Gallant is liable to the plaintiff for damages under the provisions of § 52-572 of the General Statutes. The pertinent parts of the statute state: 'The parent or parents or guardian of any unemancipated minor or minors, which minor or minors * * *, having taken a motor vehicle without the permission of the owner thereof, cause damage to such motor vehicle, shall be jointly and severally liable with such minor or minors for such damage or injury to an amount not exceeding seven hundred fifty dollars, if such minor or minors would have been liable for such damage or injury if they had been adults * * *.'

John H. Gallant was born or February 13, 1945, and, on some date prior to June 21, 1957, came under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. The Juvenile Court is a court of record. General Statutes § 17-57. Its purpose, among other things, is to determine whether some child should be taken under the direct care of the state and its officials. It is true of the Juvenile Court, as of other courts of record, that in general its record is the only mouth through which it can speak. Atwood v. Lockwood, 76 Conn. 555, 558, 57 A. 279. The docket entries of the Juvenile Court are entries of judicial proceedings, and a certified transcript of them constitutes the proper proof that such proceedings have been had. Smith v. Brokett, 69 Conn. 492, 502, 38 A. 57; Dart v. Mecum, 19 Conn.Sup. 428, 431, 116 A.2d 668. These entries were not presented at the hearing. However, it would appear that the parties seem to agree that John had been committed to the care and custody of the commissioner of welfare by the Juvenile Court on June 21, 1957, which commitment was not formally revoked until 1962. John was sent to the school for boys at Meriden and remained there until February 10, 1961, when the school sent him home to his father, the defendant Charles, where he appears to have remained at least until January 2, 1962. While John was technically in the custody of the state, he was under the control of his fa...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Mobley, 6-337571
    • United States
    • Connecticut Superior Court
    • 28 d6 Agosto d6 1993
    ...Spirt, supra, 108 Conn. at 733-34, 143 A. 844; Smith v. Brockett, 69 Conn. 492, 502, 38 A. 57 (1897); Gillespie v. Gallant, 1 Conn.Cir. 594, 596, 24 Conn.Sup. 357, 190 A.2d 607 (1963); 30 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 979 (1967); cf. General Statutes § 51-52; Practice Book § 395. Such docket entrie......
  • Potomac Ins. Co. v. Torres
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 19 d1 Abril d1 1965
    ...opportunity to control him. We think that he was 'living with the parents' within the contemplation of the statute. Gillespie v. Gallant, 24 Conn.Sup. 357, 190 A.2d 607. There is very little, if any, difference between 'willful' and 'malicious' conduct, Mills v. Glennon, 2 Idaho 105, 6 P. 1......
  • Watson v. Gradzik
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Common Pleas
    • 8 d2 Março d2 1977
    ...placing upon the parent the obligation to control his minor child so as to prevent him from intentionally harming others. Gillespie v. Gallant, 24 Conn.Sup. 357, 1 Conn.Cir. 594, 190 A.2d 607; Lutteman v. Martin, 20 Conn.Sup. 371, 135 A.2d 600. The other is to compensate innocent victims fo......
  • Mancino v. Webb
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • 9 d2 Fevereiro d2 1971
    ...child, and (b) knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control.' To the same effect see Gillespie v. Gallant, 24 Conn.Sup. 357, 1 Conn.Cir. 594, 190 A.2d 607 (1963); Guzy v. Gandel, 95 N.J.Super. 34, 229 A.2d 809, 810 In Klein v. Sunbeam Corp., 8 Terry 526,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT